A topic that has come up before, and worth bringing up again - making/breaking truces.

I understand there can be a difference of opinion about the details in a truce, but even when clear (e.g., 1 round truce = each side waits one turn after either gives notice before attacking), they're broken. It just happened to me by Kafka_c in game 13579122. It's down to a three players and one player chats that I'm going to overwhelm them so the third player should attack me - which is what happened. No notice as per the truce agreement Kafka_c and I had made just a handful of turns before, just an attack.

If the expectation is that truces can be broken if: a player gets too far ahead, too much time has elapsed, .... whatever self-serving rationalization is given, then why have them at all?

I'm curious as to what the concensus is on this game about whether breaking truces is just part of the game.Is Conquer Club a win-at-any-cost format? People who follow what they agree to are suckers? Or is it that people who break truces use that excuse to rationalize their dishonorable actions.

Perhaps we should add another criterion to games - "truces honored" vs. "truces subject to change without notice." At least we would all play under the same rules.

This may be a bit of a rant but it is a sincere attempt to find out what kind of game Conquer Club is supposed to be.

In general breaking truces is frowned upon but it is not against the rules. I rarely encounter people that break their truces with me. I always observe the terms and conditions if my truces but once I had to break them because the guy I had a truce with took the objectives in a game and thus would have won if I wouldn't have broken the truce. Intentionally losing a game IS against the rules. I ended up winning the game and he gave me bad ratings for breaking the truce but what can you do.

I try to avoid general truces. I think they often go on too long because no one wants to feel like a sitting duck when they announce that a truce is over. There are variations that I will do depending on the situation.

If player X has a strong lead and player Y has been attacking me, I'll start by pointing out to Y in chat that it is not in either of our best interests to be fighting while X is ahead. I don't use the word truce, and it leaves either player open to resume aggression if the situation changes, but lets them know that I'm not going to target them while a bigger threat is out there.

In other circumstances, I may request a truce between two particular territories or regions with 1 round notice to break. That still leaves the option for aggression elsewhere, but doesn't force us to waste troops battling over a stable border.

I haven't tried this yet, but it might work to have a truce where the person who wants to break it can take one territory but is not allowed to advance any. The second player is not restricted in his counter-attack. This would provide some limited incentive to end truces so that they do not go on longer than needed, and would provide a way out to those who feel that giving their opponent notice and waiting for the first attack will put them at a big disadvantage

I will keep a truce except for 2 circumstances: (1) I would almost certainly lose by keeping the truce any longer or (2) I would certainly win by breaking the truce.

Aad0906 hit on the the first circumstance above. This can come up when someone has used the truce to become unbeatably strong. Now, I don't sit back and wait until I'm about to lose just so that I can break the truce unannounced. That would be stupid. But it happens sometimes in fog games where a player makes a breakout move, and it is clear that if the other players don't take immediate action, that player will steamroll to victory. It happens less often in sunny games, since you likely should see any such moves coming. But I'm not willing to let someone truce me into the grave, and if someone thinks they can use the truce to make a move that would put them in a position to clearly win, that's not gonna fly. For example, picture someone taking a game-changing bonus because they can leave our common front undefended or make an elimination of a third player that sets them up for the in if I have to wait a round before attacking. It could also happen where a third party fails to complete a take-out. Not gonna let him sit there with 1 territ and 5 cards because of a truce if I'll win because of it (or he'll be eliminated anyway before his next turn).

Additionally, I consider a clean sweep of the board to be a valid justification for breaking a truce. It's happened for example in an escalating spoils game where I had a truce with someone, but they also formed a convenient part of a multi-cash chain of kills. I'm not going to tiptoe around that player and save them for last just to honor a truce and potentially cost me my sweep.

I figure the truce is entered into with the full knowledge that only one of us can emerge victorious. And if the choice is between me and my truce-mate, I'll choose me

That said, I'd better be pretty sure that I'm right before I break a truce. It's only happened a couple of times, but I've never been wrong in my assessment of the results of keeping the truce. And most people understand that.